Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @07:53AM
from the no-hud-for-you dept.

mrspoonsi writes "Engadget reports 'California is technology's spiritual home in the US, where Teslas roam free, and Google Glass is already a social norm. Well, unless you're a member of the San Diego law enforcement that is — as one unlucky driver just found out. That commuter was Cecilia Abadie, and she's (rather fittingly) taken to Google+ after being given a ticket for driving while wearing her Explorer Edition.'"

Obviously you shouldn't do those things while driving. The article isn't about a situation where we think a person might have been doing that. It was about having a personal computer screen which may, or may not, be illegal to have in a car.

It'll come down to technicalities in the wording in the law in question, bizarre precedents made up by previous judges, etc.

What the driver was doing on their computer, isn't said and probably can't be proven either way. So if the law turns out to involve how the de

You're right that holding the phone doesn't technically present a danger - but how do you know whether that person is holding their phone to text, check Facebook, on speakerphone, etc. What other reason is there even to have a phone in your hand while driving, other than actually using it? Better to just make it illegal to have the phone in your hand while driving, otherwise it will lead to people being sneaky.

I sometimes use my phone while sat in traffic, but if I get caught then it's my own fault..

but how do you know whether that person is holding their phone to text, check Facebook, on speakerphone, etc.

How do you know they don't plan to use that fork to murder someone? That cup of coffee doesn't contain illegal drugs? Their wallet doesn't contain leaked NSA secret documents?

Under conventional Western-style rule-of-Law, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I realize the UK has a slightly different take on that than the US, but I believe you still have the same general principle.

Make no mistake, you know when someone has their attention on their phone rather than the road. The little telltale signs give it away - Looking at their lap instead of forward, swerving all over the place, complete failure to pick a speed and stay there.

Defining a million and one "proxy" crimes only leads to less and less respect for the law as a whole.

How do you know they don't plan to use that fork to murder someone? That cup of coffee doesn't contain illegal drugs? Their wallet doesn't contain leaked NSA secret documents?

Strawman much? Those are all pretty irrelevant for driving safety. Holding your phone in your hand in a visible manner while driving is an obvious sign of your attention being diverted from the 1.5 tonnes of steel currently hurtling around under your supposed control.

Holding your phone in your hand in a visible manner while driving is an obvious sign of your attention being diverted from the 1.5 tonnes of steel currently hurtling around under your supposed control.

No one said anything about making a call. No one said anything about texting. In the case in TFA, she had the Google Glass off.

We very much have the idea here of mere proximity to a possibly distracting object as the primary offense. Yeah, I have a problem with that. That lead me to complain about a h

If I have a DVD player in my car with the screen visible to the driver, that's against CA law. Doesn't matter if it's off. Many states have similar laws, which is why the screen built into my dash can play DVDs, but only when the car is parked - that's the accepted legal work-around.

Holding a phone while operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Driving is a privilege not a right. Since we cannot differentiate between someone holding a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate and someone texting with a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate, both should be disallowed. There is absolutely no reason you can't set your phone down for the drive, and it does not infringe on your rights one bit to tell you not to pick it up. When you operate a vehicle you are saying to society: yes, I will play by the rules of the road. If those rules include not holding a phone, then it is not "rights infringement". You tacitly agreed to it by getting behind the wheel. You can choose to take the bus or walk if you want to use your phone. This is the same reason that breathalyzers are compulsory. You have a right not to self incriminate and you have a right not to take a breathalyzer if you are in your home or walking down the street, but by getting behind the wheel and exercising the privilege of driving (that's why you need a license, after all) you tacitly agree to abide by a more restrictive set of regulations. In other words, by driving YOU consent to give up rights while you are behind the wheel.

Too much incorrect to tackle all of it, but the last thing you said is the most incorrect. You cannot consent to give away any right.

Actually, that is the only way to lawfully lose a right, is by consent. Anything else is an invasion - doesn't mean it's illegal. But, if an individual has a right to something or to do something. They have to willingiy give up that right, or consent, to lose it.

For instance, you have the right to drink alcohol in the US. However, you agree to not drink alcohol if you want to operate a vehicle, boat or plane. You have the right to alcohol, but you consent to giving up that right. If you are caught drinki

Actually, no, California law explicitly allows you to hold a cell phone to place a call, but only in conjunction with a hands-free device, and only when dialing. The cell phone law [ca.gov] merely says that it must be configured to support hands-free listening and talking, not dialing. Similarly, the highly problematic anti-texting law that has been used to prosecute people for such things as changing to the next song also has an explicit exception [ca.gov] for using the phone to actually call someone, including the use o

"Quite rightly"? Seriously, WTF damage do you Brits have when it comes to pissing away your basic human rights without a second thought?

I guess holding a cellphone while driving can only be considered a "basic human right" in a country that signed away all other human rights, like free speech, protection from warrantless search and wiretapping...

What in FSM's name are you talking about? There is no basic human right to hold a cellphone in the hand while driving. In fact there is no basic human right driving a motor vehicle on a public road, it is a privelege. Otherwise you would not need a driving license.

Do you seriously believe that "right to travel" means "right to drive", or "right to fly a helicopter" and that kind of thing?

Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human right concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time.

there are some houses near me that are only accessible by Interstate

It seems rather unlikely that you couldn't get to those places by foot. But why would someone who can't drive even buy their house there? Are taxis unavailable in your area? Usually people with such low user IDs make a bit more sense, but your post comes across more as trolling and/or lack of coffee.

Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey, 1916, The right to travel is not the same as driving a car. There is no right to drive a car.Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1999, There is no "fundamental right to drive".

If you're holding a phone in one hand while driving you certainly don't have both hands on the steering wheel and can't respond as well to an emergency as if you did. If you're holding it in your hand what ARE you doing with it? Cuddling it? You say holding the phone doesn't present even the slightest danger, and you're wrong. You just had your day in court and lost.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that holding a cell phone or any other electronic gadget while operating a 4000 lb (1850 Kg) vehicle on a

CaliforniaIt is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle equipped with a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of usually displaying a television broadcast if the receiver is located in the vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver’s seat.

so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here.

"so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here."

So why are they not ticketing everyone with a GPS, or other screen in the dashboard? All Prius owners should be ticketed over this right now as they have screens facing them, Also everyone with a double DIN car stereo with touchscreen are also flagrant violators of this law.

That is the way the California Motor Vehicle code was written. It states that ANYTHING which might interfere with your ability to drive a motor vehicle safely, which includes texting, adjusting the radio, even chewing gum for a sadly large portion of the population, is prohibited. It allows for the officer to make a judgment call based on the skills and performance of the driver in question. The anti-cell phone/texting laws are a bunch of politicians grandstanding to get attention, imagine that. There are e

A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(emphasis mine)

Luckily, it also specifically permits "A mapping display." Google glass obviously fits into that category. So any able-minded lawyer should be able to get that part of her speeding ticket thrown out. But even she admits to the speeding part.

There are plenty that will accept flash media (USB or card, depending on the model) and play video from it......even if the primary video source is expected to be back-up cam video.

Alternately.....my backup cam (self-install) is just a really long RCA cable....I have a non-powered video switch that I could easily hide and use it to play video from another source (such as a tuner or DVD player).....and switch to back-up cam as needed.

That may be true, and if you are playing a video on your in-dash display, you can get a ticket for it, too.

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots [wikipedia.org], how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light.

1. Military pilots (and pilots in general) get a HECK of a lot more training than any person driving on the public road does, including a massive amount of training to handle that helmet mounted display without distraction. When Google Glass comes with a 6 month intensive training course to allow you to drive with it, then you can make that comparison.

2. There's a lot less to run into in the air, even when flying in tight formation.

There is study and then there is practical training. What you are describing is study.I don't think that military pilots spend six months reading books on how to use the helmet-mounted HUD. The use it practically, under supervision from instructors who have experience in how it should and should not be used.

One difference between training and experience is that training usually follows best-practice whereas experience follows hasn't-killed-me-yet. There's plenty of 'experienced' drunk drivers out there who will be dead within the year.

The point is that someone who has not spent hours getting the experience driving around in a safe simulated environment with Google glass on their head is not safe to do that on the public roads.

You do realize that such training isn't even required to get a license to drive the vehicle in the first place? Do you know what I had to do to get a permit? I went to the DMV, paid them $10, answered 16 questions, and walked out the door. I'm over 18, so I could have hopped right in a vehicle and been on the highway in less than 15 minutes.

Google glass doesn't require any specialized training to get accustomed to that a driver wouldn't learn how to do with any other bit of equipment.

Glass's display provides an image like 25-inch screen at 8 feet of distance somewhere above and to the right of your eyeline. It's not a heads-up display. It's more like having an iPhone glued to the corner of the sun visor.

Yeah most people really need GPS on their daily commute, otherwise they would get completely lost. I can guarantee that most people wearing google glass while driving are not using it as a navigation aid. HUD displays for military aircraft are purpose built for the function of flying the aircraft only. They don't have games or a twitter app on military HUD displays.

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light

More to the point, the police can make a safe bet that whatever's being displayed in Google Glass is completely unrelated to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Whereas the contents of a HUD in a warplane is 100% concerned with the operation of the aircraft. No "Words With Friends" plugin there, and aircrews already have perfectly usable hands-off voice comm to eliminate texting.

The comparison fails at the most fundamental level: a HUD is constrained to the mission, but a Google Glass is open-ended within its capabilities (comparable to a smartphone). Which means that Glassing while driving is almost certainly a distraction, not an enhancement, because of all the things it can do, only a couple might be legitimate at the wheel (like GPS, for instance).

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots, how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

1) I don't look down at my GPS when driving. I go by its voice instructions and it surprises me that not everyone does this.

2) Pilots are looking at HUDs to get info relevant to the flying of the plane. Someone with Google Glass could be reading the New York Times.

Why are 3 ACs the only ones making the exact same redundant counter-argument here?

I know a pilot who started on the fast jet stream before being bumped for not being good enough. He did plenty of flying with a vastly more obstructive HUD than glass (a tiny box above the line you normally look through) often in circumstances with far smaller margins of error than a typical driver. I can think of no end of things a HUD could include that would make a typical driver safer so a blanket anti-HUD position make

Not really to defend her, but remember, these guys are combat pilots. The idea is in fact that when it really matters they are not surrounded by emptiness, they're surrounded by missiles, shells, enemy aircraft, friendly aircraft, etc. Their HUDs are explicitly designed to help them not collide with things, and to cause other people to collide with other things.

That said, the "I was using my HUD" argument, is 90% bullshit –it's just a thin cover for "I wanted to check Facebook on the move".

The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).

But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research to establish that we have an exception

It's not about being frightened by new things - that's the typical strawman response to rational caution. It's about examining the familiar features of new scenarios and taking them as a starting point, rather than resorting to child-like optimism (which may be beautiful but is entirely unscientific).

It's not the vision impairment that is the problem, as demonstrated by comparisons of hands-free calls vs. people holding the phone and talking. They both registered similar impairment to BAC of 0.08.

The issue is what the person is focused on with their mind.

It's different to talking to someone sitting next to you as your brain has to work harder to judge response, etc. when the person is not there for you to see. Also, most passengers there in person have sense to STFU if traffic looks like it is going to be a problem.

TLDR: we don't need (more) asshats checking twitter while on the road. The fact that it is a HUD is likely to be little different to doing the same thing on a mobile phone. Unless the device locks out all non-driving relevant functionality while driving, its use should be prohibited just like any other mobile internet device.

A HUD with email might be less of an impairment than reading a speedometer for 1-2 seconds? Really. We need to spend how much money doing studies to find out that reading text
a) takes longer
b) longer distraction times will be more distracting

No. A hud with email or text will be a distraction to driving far worse than looking at the speedometer - which you've already established a upper threshold of how much distraction to allow. Ban the crap out of this until a reliable study shows that this really isn'

I've seen it go as far as people wanting to ban manual transmission because it takes your mind off the road and you need both hands on the wheel--while statistics show that manual transmission drivers are better drivers

I would love to see those statistics -- just to back me up. The idea just seems logical. If you can manage to use both hands and both feet to accomplish something, it would seem to indicate good motor skills. Consider the safest class of drivers on the road -- pros who drive tractor-trailer rigs, which almost universally have manual transmissions.

Most of the worst driving I see on the highways are vehicles that don't come with a manual option, like large SUVs. It would seem more likely that driving a ve

When confronted with a new scenario, we must start off by identifying familiar, well-researched features - re visibility, concentration, focus - and applying existing knowledge.

You are making an untested hypothesis that Google Glass is a unique combination which forms an exception. That's fine. But "optimism" isn't a basis for deployment, merely a prompt to ignite the research spirit.

Click on the "one unlucky driver...." link and laugh at all the extreme glassHOLE commentary. The silly self-entitled so-and-so was stopped for SPEEDING, and the Google Glass thing was secondary... given the comments, me thinks perhaps some C.O.P.-- contempt of police- attitude may have played a part here as to the reason for the cop deciding to throw on the Glass obstruction of view thing. What purpose is served by wearing this thing while driving, if it is off? Cause it's too much trouble to take off and put back on when you stop the car?

Note she was cited for speeding and a second violation. Wearing Glass was the third violation on the image of the ticket she posts. Speeding while distracted by a web enabled heads up display - how bad would she have felt if she'd killed someone.....

She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them

She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them

Actually, I can understand what she's talking about - the signs are not always there and/or are can be obscured by other traffic. I specifically purchashed a GPS with a speed limit display so even if I miss a sign I know what the speed limit is. And I've found that on highways, the speed limit display is surprisingly accurate -- usually it changes at the exact point where I'm passing a new speed limit sign.

Also, many municipalities assume that you know what their blanket speed limit is and don't post any s

Came to say this - she was trying to make this about google glass, when it was about her speeding. She and/or the officer were being dickish and thus the google glass part of the ticket, but she was stopped and ticketed for speeding. The infraction for the glass would undoubtably get thrown out if she goes before a judge.

The first line in the violations section contains "65 mph" but I can't read the rest, so it looks like that was the main reason for stopping. The next line starts with 27602 which is the code for driving with a TV or monitor visible to the driver [ca.gov].

It looks like she might be able to claim an exception under 27602(2) or (3):

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
(6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that does not allow the driver to view any part of the display while driving, even though the terminal may be operating, installed in a vehicle that is owned or operated by any of the following:
(A) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
(B) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
(C) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
(D) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
(E) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
(F) A local publicly owned electric utility, as defined in Section 224.3 of the Public Utilities Code.
(G) A city, joint powers agency, or special district, if that local entity uses the vehicle solely in the provision of sewer service, gas service, water service, or wastewater service.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
(d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a vehicle when the vehicle is deployed in an emergency to respond to an interruption or impending interruption of electrical, natural gas, telephone, sewer, water, or wastewater service, and the vehicle is owned or operated by any of thefollowing:
(1) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
(2) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
(3) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
(4) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
(5) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
(6) A local publi

(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.

(6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that d

You would have to define "global positioning display" carefully. I suspect that most courts would conclude that multifunction devices do not fall under the exemption, or that the device would have to be demonstrably in that mode at the time of the incident for the exemption to apply.

I went to that first link and had a look at some of the clowns commenting on the G+ thread. Even the typical/. crowd would shun these people as dorks. Google Glass could cure cancer and make you able to fly, and they are NEVER going to sell these things when that is the face of the product.

... and the argument that if HUDs don't interfere with jet pilots, they shouldn't pose a problem for automobile drivers, where in the article does it mention that she was actually using it in that capacity?

I firmly suspect she was not....

But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

It's not "merely" driving with a monitor visible to driver. That was my first thought too, but after checking the full text of the Section, it includes a pretty comprehensive list of exceptions including vehicle info display and GPS, under which an integrated HUD system would definitely be covered.

This is exactly what cops have always wanted. If only there was a way to identify self-important, stuck up assholes who think they're better than everyone else and are thus speeding. Oh wait! See if they're wearing Google glass.

Here in California, we've got a law [ca.gov] that says you can't have a video display operating anywhere the driver might see it, with exceptions for dedicated GPS/Nav/vehicle status displays.

A friend of mine used to have an online store for GPS navigation devices. Many of the manufacturer's had "California" versions of the ROMs that he was required to ship to customers in California. The difference is that all the non-nav-related features (like games, calendar apps, etc.) were disabled when the device was in motion. This was to comply with the aforementioned law. While this was a long time ago, and the law has been amended substantially since then, I believe it still applies to this situation, but, of course, I am not a lawyer.

Google Glass is the kind of thing that -- if the software is designed appropriately -- ought to be both safe and useful in any situation, including driving. Pretty much the whole point of it is that it knows what you're doing, and helps you do it. So when you're driving, for example, it ought to be actively suppressing other distractions (setting your phone to "do not disturb") and giving you information to help you drive (like "watch out, the guy on the left is encroaching into your lane").

The only "proof" I can find of that in TFA is a post by one person claiming that the cop had to trail her for a while before issuing the speeding ticket. And that really doesn't prove she did not see the cop.

My proof is the way it says "65mph/PACE" on the ticket. You know what "PACE" is, right? It means the cop drives along behind you long enough to get a good, documented speed reading.

With that out of that way... what's your "proof" that she saw the cop and made a decision to keep on speeding?

PS: Most cops don't stop a moderately speeding car unless something else about it called their attention in the first place, eg. swerving / bad driving / possible DUI.

Cute, but unless you hold a phone at eye level with the road, which I've never seen anybody do, it is in fact completely different. There's a reason that modern military aircraft have HUDs with vital information on them, because the time it takes to move your eyes around, locate and focus on various things can be critical at high speeds. When the visual separation is trivial it can in fact increase concentration, and if you disagree, please inform the world's air forces at once on your genius discovery.

There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.

Your missing a vital point in your wonderful argument......the data being displayed in your example (military aircraft) has everything to do with flying and maneuvering the plane and not chatting or looking up something that can easily be addressed once the vehicle has stopped moving.

Now if they were able to provide car telemetry or something like "45 MPH zone approaching" and show you the line where it starts, then I would agree with you completely. But that is simply not the case.

But, it seems that a low of people are arguing that Glass should be illegal to wear while driving. Is it better to have to look down at your dash to view your navigation than to have it displayed in the corner of your vision? Or, is the argument that it CAN be used improperly (watching youtube, facebook, etc.) so it should be illegal? If that is the argument, then we should ban all guns because they can be used improperly (to kill innocent people).

Just because the information is in your line of sight does not mean that it is in your focus. You have to shift focus to see information in the near plane. And there is a reason HUDs use graphic icons, they are faster for the brain to process. And the plane HUD displays information directly relevant to the successful operation/survival of the aircraft. Reading text takes several orders of magnitude longer to process. If you are traveling at 30mph (slow residential speed) and you read a text for 5 seconds, you have traveled 77 yards, nearly a football field, and you then have to refocus on the outside and scan for any new threats, which will take additional time.

If I was to tell you that I would drive down your street at 30 mph once a day with my eyes closed for a 100 yard section, and I was to do it when you little brother/ daughter/insert loved one was out playing would you be as cavalier about the costs of distracted driving?

or, to answer you question, no I would not inform the world's air forces that you don't understand the difference between a military HUD and a recreational distraction.

That's why the texting-while-driving laws are so dangerous. People used to text with the phone on top of the steering wheel. Since the laws, they now text on their lap. Fatal crashes have increased and real scientific studies have shown the increased danger.

Lawmakers think "we can stop this behavior" despite all evidence to the contrary and just wind up making things worse.

Since it's obvious that these people would rather not be driving, I sure hope they'

Putting aside the fact that said laws are illogical - the reason you don't do that is because there is a law explicitly forbidding it. Last I checked there is no law explicitly forbidding wearing Google Glass.

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

You haven't been reading the posts carefully then. There IS a law explicitly forbidding "entertainment" and non-informational displays (information for driving, not other crap) being displayed in front of the rear of the driver's seat. The law also explicitly lists exceptions, to include GPS and video (such as rear view cameras) that enhance the driver's ability to operate safely. Google glass may fall into that category but it very clearly also falls outside of that category.